Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study: 65 Percent Of Coal Plants In Danger Of Closure

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 



Are they compatible with my perpetual motion machine?


if the energy generation is at the right capasity for the grid,
then i dont see why not


xploder




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 



while this is true, i wouldn't like to see any bald eagles die,
if we dont get off coal the whole planet will die


You missed my whole point!


An eastern Nevada wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 over the death of a golden eagle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating the bird's death at the Spring Valley Wind Farm near the Utah border, 350 miles east of Reno, spokesman Jeannie Stafford said.

San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, owner of the 152-megawatt wind energy project that sells power to Las Vegas-based NV Energy, turned over the dead eagle to federal authorities within 36 hours of its discovery in February.


Source

So if you thought I was joking, I am not! So there is the evidence, that this whole green energy thing and that the "World Government" is doing it for our safety is total BS......................!!!!!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


fair call but if you think about it in winter there is more wind,
they also have hydro generation that is year around.

REMEMBER
germany will be off nuclear by 2022,
if america is really the worlds super power it should be able to achive the same thing

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Read your own link.


Already, the test devices have produced efficiencies of almost 5 percent, among the highest ever reported for a quantum-dot PV based on zinc oxide, he says. With further development, Jean says, it may be possible to improve the devices’ overall efficiency beyond 10 percent, which is widely accepted as the minimum efficiency for a commercially viable solar cell.


It's not even at 5% efficiency. A far cry from the 50% you claim.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Good riddance to the toxic mercury purveyors (the largest industrial source of mercury exposure)... and not a moment too soon.. before we are all mad hatters



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
If solar/wind was so superior why then do we not see most people switching over to power their entire homes on a closed circuit?

Because we are not there yet... Its more costly in the long run.

Once again, we need the cheapest energy available right now- We need those good Coal Mining Jobs. We are soon going to be to a point where people are unable to heat their homes all winter. Once Solar becomes proven, every home will come with its own Solar Unit and there will be no more electric bills-

I know for a fact that my Sister and her Husband (they are fairly wealthy) looked into this and found that it would cost far more over the long term *with what is available now* than a huge generator which runs on natural gas (and powers the entire home)- They live in an area with spotty power anyhow (very rural) and wanted to assure a powered home even in the worst storms/blizzards.

-It wasnt cost effective. If it were, most of us would go out and get a loan and never have an electric bill again... When the tech is there, the cost is worth it, the free market will work.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 





if you want to look at it from a science perspective instead of a political one,


The science is "the climate is changing" care to answer why push a technology that depends on the climate?



WOW,
yes lets use more coal and hurry up the process of killing our world shall we?

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


the technology exists now and production is cheep and easy,
we dont need to wait,
germany is an example of what going solar can do,
AND IT MAKES THERE ECONOMY more competitive in the world stage as lower energy costs equal lower manufacturing costs

xploder


Although this statement is correct, it can not be used for comparison.

Germany occupies 138,000 square miles, with 81 million people. The US occupies 3.8 million square miles, with 316 million people.

The magnitude of work required to transfer one to alternative energy vs the other is...quite frankly, mind boggling.

The US can make the change, but it will not be quick, cheap, or easy.

That makes coal a necessity until the infrastructure for the alternatives covers at least what the coal does currently.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Read your own link.


Already, the test devices have produced efficiencies of almost 5 percent, among the highest ever reported for a quantum-dot PV based on zinc oxide, he says. With further development, Jean says, it may be possible to improve the devices’ overall efficiency beyond 10 percent, which is widely accepted as the minimum efficiency for a commercially viable solar cell.


It's not even at 5% efficiency. A far cry from the 50% you claim.


um you do realise this is in the reasurch phase of development?

Jean says. Using a bottom-up growth process to grow these nanowires and infiltrating them with lead-sulfide quantum dots produces a 50 percent boost in the current generated by the solar cell


50% BOOST in the current generated,


there are many other science articles i can show you if you are interested

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China

So what good does all that do?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China

So what good does all that do?


THIS....

What we do makes zero difference if our "slack" is picked up by China (and other nations as China changes)- Keep funding the R&D and when green Energy becomes cheaper and better the entire World will switch based on coast/benefit alone...The more scarce Coal becomes, the higher the price- At some point the Solar we keep improving and making cheaper will trump the Coal which we are extracting and making more costly.

EDIT : This is honestly a case where the free market will work if left alone...
edit on 25-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 



Although this statement is correct, it can not be used for comparison.

Germany occupies 138,000 square miles, with 81 million people. The US occupies 3.8 million square miles, with 316 million people.

The magnitude of work required to transfer one to alternative energy vs the other is...quite frankly, mind boggling.

The US can make the change, but it will not be quick, cheap, or easy.

That makes coal a necessity until the infrastructure for the alternatives covers at least what the coal does currently.


you are correct the challenge is larger because the energy consumption is higher as is the population and area,
but america is leading the way in r&d on solar technologies,

so the intellectual property earnings could "help" with the installation costs.

your scientists are literally on the verge of an energy break through with photo voltaic s

why would the country who designs the best solar technology not roll it out for domestic use?

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 





Keep funding the R&D and when green Energy becomes cheaper and better


See this is the part where I say those "energy cartels" should be footing the bill on their own instead of us they can't do that if that are wasting billion of dollars complying with EPA regulations.

When the world is ready for it, and it is cheap people will buy it there are no if's,and's or but's about that.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


It has far more to do with the level of infrastructure changes required then it does with the power generation, or the consumption, for that matter.

You can be as advanced at either end as you want, if the grid in between can't handle it it needs to be changed.

That is the problem the US faces.

And it is a phenomenally sized problem.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken the coal ALREADY shut down is amoungst the cleanest it can get which if I rememeber correctly when burned with proper gear is supposed to be very very low impact compared to other fossile and certainly nuclear waste...

It would bring the energy costs down which is a prime mover of the economy and in my opinion would take business away from the unregulated power generators in the rest of the world and so therefore help clean up the overall picture which blows and flows everywhere anyway

in defence of Neo's economics
look at Spain
it went green
now in the news today on the beeb they have rediculiously close to 50 percent unemployment

green is the new red
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Doing work as an electrician many time a year, I am pretty current on solar tech.

50% boost in current doesn't mean 50% efficiency. In fact in your quote in the post that I first responded to, the 50% boost in current was reported to increase efficiency by 35%. Meaning if solar cells are now at 5% efficiency due to this, they only operated at about 3.5% before.

In 20 years solar might be a viable source of energy.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
double post. . .

edit on 25-4-2013 by randomtangentsrme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China

So what good does all that do?



REALLY?
thats your argument?
everyone else is doing it?
well if the usa did it and it was cheaper for energy in the usa than in china dont you think manufacturing would return to the US?

if energy is renewable, there is no cost to mine transport and consume the coal,
this equates to cheeper power, cheaper power equals a more competitive environment,

this means you can produce products cheaper than countires that have to mine.
china will be forced to follow suit or become uncompetitive.

its the future

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China

So what good does all that do?


THIS....

What we do makes zero difference if our "slack" is picked up by China (and other nations as China changes)- Keep funding the R&D and when green Energy becomes cheaper and better the entire World will switch based on coast/benefit alone...The more scarce Coal becomes, the higher the price- At some point the Solar we keep improving and making cheaper will trump the Coal which we are extracting and making more costly.

EDIT : This is honestly a case where the free market will work if left alone...
edit on 25-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)


spot on star

you are fully correct,
remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by XPLodER
 


It has far more to do with the level of infrastructure changes required then it does with the power generation, or the consumption, for that matter.

You can be as advanced at either end as you want, if the grid in between can't handle it it needs to be changed.

That is the problem the US faces.

And it is a phenomenally sized problem.


there is a new generation cable that super conducts at high temperature being developed in the USA,
transportation usually consumes about 30% of generated capacity,

the new tech losses very little even over large distences

30% more power by just replacing the transportation lines alone

xploder





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join